tv This Week With George Stephanopoulos ABC February 24, 2013 9:00am-10:00am EST
good morning and welcome to "this week." a new cliff is here. >> these cuts are not smart. >> it's a stupid way to govern. >> across the board spending cuts, just five days away. >> the president is making stuff up. >> will they hit too hard? are the warnings too hyped? what will this stalemate really mean for you and your family. plus, china hackers targeting american companies. joe biden targets the nra. >> you don't need an ar-15. buy a shotgun and the oscars hit washington. we take on all of the week's politics right now.
hello again. 18 months ago, the white house and congress agreed to a doomsday plan across the board spending cuts. forcing washington find a better fix to our budget. no dice. that sequester will start on friday. the battle over what it means has already begun. we'll debate that on our powerhouse round table. but first some facts. pentagon will take the biggest hit. president obama warned of dire consequences yesterday. >> the threat of these cuts has forced the navy to delay the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the persian gulf. just this week, the pentagon announced that if these cuts go through, almost 800,000 defense employees, the equivalent of every person in miami and cleveland combined will be forced to take an unpaid leave.
>> with that, let's take the debate to our first roundtable. headlined by mike rogers of michigan. lead democrat on the house foreign affairs committee eric engoal and our own george will and christiane amanpour. >> the impact on the national security, no doubt. only 2 cents on the dollar over the whole federal budget. that's in seven months and highlighted, put at least most of the burden on the defense department. that's going to have an impact. that's a 13% cut. the best way to get through this, we can point fingers the best way to do this is to allow flexibility. if you allow flexibility -- >> i wanted to bring that to congressman engoal. >> i think the sequester was a stupid thing. i voted against it the first time it came up. it's a ridiculous thing to do.
the fact is, we need to do things that are smart, not take a meet cleaver and just cut. >> should the white house accept this call from the republicans? >> i think congress should sit down and avoid the sequester and if the sequester kicks in, for a week or go, we should then fix it. >> the navy insists they had no choice than to delay the deployment of the aircraft carrier. if so, if they have no wiggle room at all, that suktss to me that flexibility is what the administration does not want them to have. because they want to maximize the pain. they want to push pressure on republican to unravel the sequester. >> congressman rogers, right now, at least, within a month, you'll have these furloughs on
the employees. >> if we have flexibility, there's a b a sailor on the eisenhower out in the med trainer and the travel coordinator at the epa. you can't treat them the same and the way this is structured it treats everyone the same. you can't do that. if you give them the flexibility, they can make that determination. we have intelligence operations that could get slowed down or stopped. that's a problem. but if you sit down and talk to these folks, if you had the flexibility can you find 2 cents on the dollar on e e fish essential is than cutting the bones? >> george, it's here we go again. government by crisis. the military in the united states is in play. not just the aircraft carrier and intelligence and the navy, it is also flight hours.
having to cut down what the air force personnel can do. and even deployments for troops overseas. unable to sort of, perhaps, transfer and transfer personnel out there. people would have to have longer deployments. . the whole thing doesn't make sense when viewed from outside. now, another big headline, from this week, we saw a report coming out, detailing chinese attacks, chinese military cyber attacks on u.s. targets. 140 targets. this is from the "new york times." its focus is on companies involved in the critical infrastructure of the united states. according to security researchers one target was a company with remote access to more than 60% of oil and gas pipelines in north america. it drew the attention of the former cia mike hagen.
>> there are a lots of way we can make this relation less comfortable to them. if this is important, then you got to start taking some actions. >> congressman rogers, you say that this is a war we're losing. >> we are losing. 141 targets peals in comparison. that's probably every day. we get every single day by a series of attacks. >> you believe that chinese -- the chinese government, the chinese military is behind this. >> beyond a shadow of a doubt. they use their military to steal intellectual property from american businesses, european businesses, repurpose it and compete in the international market against the united states. it's unprecedented. this has never happened in the history of the world, where one
nation steals the intellectual property to repurpose to illegally compete against the country. it's getting worse, why, there's no consequence for it. >> the "new york times" report that quoted this troop, traced this latest outbreak of cyber warfare to a warehouse. that's a building, a unit owned by the pla. >> companies have been unwilling to talk about it. that is changing now? >> it is. they're dealing with a very difficult, frankly a gangster regime. no one wants to make them unhappy. george, last june, david sanger in the "new york times" rang a story from his first months in office, president obama secretly ordered attacks of computer attacks that ran iran's nuclear
enrichment facilitiefacilities. we have participated in cyber sabotage. and it turns out, what if china is thinking, we can compete with the united states or maybe we can just learn how to disable the massive infrastructure of our potential ally or edadversa? >> the united states does not participate, use its military intelligence services for economic espionage, we do not do that. it's prohibited. it would be crazy to say that we don't participate in espionage. but this is very, very different. >> i think gets to a fundamental relationship with the chinese. i think we have to make it very clear to them, that this cannot
be business as usual. if they're going to continue to do this, there's a price to pay. we raised this with the chinese -- top chinese officials, they let it roll off their back. they don't admit to it. >> is the white house pressuring hard enough? >> i think they can do it more. i think they're doing it hard enough. there has to be a fundamental stand that we need to take with the chinese. it can't be business as usual. >> what is the way to fight back? sanctions? what? >> i argue you need to start indicting bad actors. start impacting individuals' abilities who are participating in this activity in china. it needs to be a direct bilateral discussion. put one, two, and three. it's that serious. we have a well-known company who was hacked, had their blueprint
stolen, if you will, estimated 125,000 manufacturing jobs lost. >> it could be cyber pearl harbor. >> again, there's an intellectual blank slate on which the international committee meets to write rules. david sanger last june, it appears to be the first time that the united states has repeatedly used cyber weapons to cripple another country's infrastructure. >> you can't believe everything you read in the press, george. >> are you saying that he's not? >> i would be very cautious about ascribing authorship. >> would be there anything wrong if united states was trying to sabotage the iran's nuclear program? >> those kind of things happen.
here's the difference, if someone comes into your office and steals your sensitive intellectual property and walks out the door with it, that's a crime. i'm arguing let's start the indictment process to send a message to china that you cannot -- if you want to be an international player, you can't act like a thief in the night. >> how serious in the future is the threat? >> huge. here's the scary part of this, it's already part of military planning for the russians. for the chinese and here's where it gets interesting. now, the iranians. there's a company in saudi arabia, a very sfis skated attack, it basically killed 30,000 machines, meaning you're not going to reboot that computer of yours. it manipulated data, changed
data. very, very serious to the functioning of that company. here in the united states, it's been ascribed to the iranians they were probing our financial institutions. a denial of service attack. very low on the sophistication scale. they're probing looking for vulnerabilities. they're already looking to disrupt. china would be a rational actor. same with the russians. >> the regimes of deter rents here. deterred with nuclear -- >> you can. if you're going to punch your neighbor in the nose, best to hit the weight room for a couple of months. >> we're not ready yet? >> we're not ready. another subject. syria, the situation seemed to have deteriorated. we talked to terry moran earlier this morning about the options the u.s. has right now.
>> we just got out of syria. it looks like the situation there is going to go from worse to worse. you got rising sectarian hatred. now, staking their claim to the future in syria, massive war crimes rising violence and criminality and we could find no evidence that bashares asad is about to break. they wanted to change the government. the united states has a choice, armed the rebels, engage deeply or broker a peace. probably with russia. give the syrian people an opportunity to determine their future and at least in the first stages, he's likely to be a part of that process. >> congressman engel, is that
the choice? >> i think it is. i think it's time to armed the rebels. it needs help. we know who they are. it's time that we make that move. >> white house officials make two arguments against arming the rebels. one, you don't want them to have shoulder-fire missiles because of the threat to aircraft. number two, the opposition is getting what it needs right now from the gulf states. >> i'm not talking about that, i certainly there are other things that we can get to them. it's never the right time. always a time that could be better. i think we run the risk of seeing assad hang on for a long time. he's a bad player. back in 1979, when his father was in power, countries that aid and abet terrorism, syria was a chartered member of that.
nothing has changed in syria. this has been a regime that governs with an iron fist. they murdered tens of thousands of their own people. almost 1 million displaced. it has the potential to disrupt other countries like jordan, all around, and i think it's time that the united states take a fair stand by arming the rebels. >> you agree? >> the united states doesn't have credibility with the opposition now. so, any diplomatic negotiated settlement here, the united states can't play an important role because they don't have the faith and confidence of the opposition. russia is playing a game here that could be helpful. here's what i think we should do, the jordanians, the turks are putting weapons systems in to syria to aid the opposition. the islamists have attached
themselves to most of the secular units. almost every unit has islamist as their main fighters. they need them and count on them for the fight. that's a huge problem for the united states. we have all of those weapons systems including conventional weapons that will awash the la bont across the middle east. we need to take a leadership in this. safe zone in the north. and coordinate all of the weapons systems that are going in so that at least we have the credibility for negotiated settlement. >> congressman, talking about credibility, secretary kerry going over this week to middle east. >> that's true. in rome, where the opposition is boycotting because of what they say, an unacceptable response from the u.s. to syria.
this has been two years now. and all of the reasons for not intervening have come true nfor not intervening. all of the things that you just outlined. friends around syria, destabilizing the massive amount of weapons that could be loose, threatening south africa with al qaeda popping up. beyond that, do we want to see syria become somalia? do we not remember that somalia was for the united states? the options as far as i can see is the u.s. does what you're suggesting. tries to have skin in the game. tries to have credibility on the ground. influence on the ground. turns a war into a shorter war
rather than a longer war in somalia. >> let me try to disrupt the harmony. we have two objections. the humanitarian objective of economizing violence. no analogy is perfect. going back to the spanish civil war that began in 1936, by the time it got in full-blown proportions. there was no happy choice. we're going to control spain or franco is going to control spain. you say congressman, we know who the rebels are how do we know? >> we know, we know the free army. let me say one thing, it's a blow to iran if assad falls. assad has been the ally of hezbollah. the europeans should designate
hezbollah as a terror organization. iran would be dealt a blow. they're fighting. they have their shoulders in syria. hezbollah is fighting in syria. this would be a strategic vote to iran. >> reporter: our david muir spent a week in iran, in tehran, around the country, took a look at how hard these international sanctions are hitting. >> george, good morning. the economic sanctions the tightening sanctions led by the u.s. are truly felt here in iran. so many people talked about the prices going up dramatically here. inflation at rates 40% in some places. there's no question that people are feeling these sanctions. the question is whether or not the leadership is feeling it and if they're going to do anything? the economic sanctions. the people here feeling it.
george? >> christiane, the president ahmadinejad conceded that it's been a very difficult year. >> just talking to people in iran it's been catastrophic for the people. it's less affected the regime and what it has done is militaryized iran. in other words, everything is view in the parameter of war. the revolutionary guard in iran is taking on another excuse for taking over again. i think what's interesting is, there was a very interesting conversation with the iranian ambassador here, who said that we can have talks, we don't want to with a gun to our heads. except that the united states
has to accept our rights under the proliferation treaty. will the congress, will the political sphere here in the united states, allow real diplomacy? to have a real diplomatic negotiation. >> congressman the fear that these talks are just a stalling tactic? >> that stalling, that time has cost us in their development of their nuclear weapons program. they just recently put in more sophisticated secentrifuges. >> at the same time, they agreed to limit -- >> here's the problem, think about the consequence of a nuclear iran, this isn't france, this isn't great britain, this isn't rational actors. they have committed acts of
terror. bulgaria is now going to the eu to try to get at least some tougher sanctions on hezbollah through iran because of attempt -- they attempted to kill the ambassador in. >> if the president means what he has said repeatedly and clearly, nuclear iran means war with the united states. the president has said that he does not endorse containment of iran. they will not have, he said, nuclear weapons. if theys can cross that threshold, there must be some red line somewhere that means war with iran. >> there are other options to war. >> the worst possible scenario would be a nuclear-armed iran,
think that has to be stopped. >> which the president has pledged to do. >> what he has. i think we need to work in consultation with our european allies to make sure that that doesn't happen. they have been bad players straight-on. they're not negotiating in my opinion in good faith. i think we have to understand that. >> the real question is, what to do? we can talk about this until we're blue in the face. the most painful sanctions imposed on iran are under way right now. they're not affecting their desire to continue to enrich. the question is, what does one do? this is not an argument, it's really -- >> in terms of military conflict with the united states, that isn't being rationaled that's
being sane. they're committed act of terrorism around the world is not rational. the fact they're trying to get after our financial institutions through cyber attacks. >> we have to move on. very quick question, yes or no, a military conflict with iran this year or do you believe there's another way to block their program sf. >> i think there's other ways to block their program. >> congressman, thank you. christiane you'll stick around for our web extra coming up, george will joins the new roundtable and plus the man behind the time cover story. >> go out and get "time" magazine. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. executor of efficiency. you can spot an amateur from a mile away... while going shoeless and metal-free in seconds.
and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. now this...will work. [ male announcer ] just like you, business pro. just like you. go national. go like a pro. just like you. and every day since, two years ago, the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf. we've worked hard to keep it. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars
to help people and businesses who were affected, and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy -- and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. we've shared what we've learned with governments and across the industry so we can all produce energy more safely. i want you to know, there's another commitment bp takes just as seriously: our commitment to america. bp supports nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs in communities across the country. we hired three thousand people just last year. bp invests more in america than in any other country. in fact, over the last five years, no other energy company has invested more in the us than bp. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. today, our commitment to the gulf, and to america, has never been stronger. next roundtable is ready to go, but first the sunday funny
and the u.s. postal service is launching a clothing line. they're going to sell post office clothes. which makes sense, i'm like it's like a european fashion show in here. where can i get some of that stuff? chinese hackers can one day take out the power supply, or otherwise known as pulling a beyonce. [ kitt ] you know what's impressive? a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ if you don't have something important to say?
i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel,
a battle in the house. it's a nest in there. they rejected the amendment ten months ago. they'll lose. >> i like our chances now. >> 007 over here into a country that wants cia blood on their breakfast cereal. you're going to walk the brady bunch out of the city. >> that's right. >> suicide missions in the army that had better odds than this. >> 100% is there. okay, fine, 95%. because i know certainty few freaks you guys out. >> lot of politics up for best picture this year. here with our second roundtable. joined by george will again.
abc news contributor donna brazile. steven brill. steven rattner. and kimberley strassel. this sequester is hitting on friday. the public doesn't seem to mind all that much. pew poll out this week, about 49 prkt of the public say they want to delay the cuts. but 40% say let them go in effect. most of the blame seems to be heading towards the gop. 49% say they should bare the blame for this. republicans are in a strong political position, you say that the sequester isn't some gop fallback position, it's a proactive strategy. their way of changing the washington spending debate. >> this is where they want the
debate to be on government spending. you go back two months ago, the focus was on the lack of unity in the party. now, they brought this back to the issue they think matters, which is size of government, whether or not we're spending too much, what the drag of federal spending is on the private economy and increasingly, they're bringing it back to this one central question which is the only question in this debate which is to the white house, are you honestly saying that you can't cut $85 billion out of a trillion-dollar budget? >> it was meant to force a compromise. spending cuts as well as revenues. it wasn't intended to shut down a government or to have one side win an argument when both sides agreed that we need to have a more robust economic growth and a plan to solve this problem, not just in the short term but in the long term as well. >> $85 billion number itself is the wrong number.
that's budget authority. the cbo said actual spending cut would be $44 billion in this fiscal year. that's less congress shoveled out the door to help the victims of superstorm sandy. >> but, george, it's on top of a $1.5 trillion. >> we're being told by the president that these are severe, brutal, meet cleaver, those are all his words. 2.4 spending. one half gdp. the domestic agencies that would receive on average a 5% cut, received from mr. obama in the last five years, 17% increases. . the president's position has to be the logic of it is, right now the government is the minimal
government that spends between -- >> that's not the president's position. it's not a 2%. these cuts are focused heavily on what discretionary spending. education and traffic. things that matter. as george said, on top $1.7 trillion of cuts voted in the last two years, all on these same programs. i don't think the president is opposed to talking about spending. but let's talk about it as -- let's put everything on the table, including revenues. revenues were increased a small amount relatively to amount of spending cuts. >> but it doesn't have to be that way. this is up to the white house. >> it's not up to the white house. >> just move the $85 billion. are you saying that subsidies to
companies, slush funds, duplicated programs? you can move that money into something that makes sense. >> absolutely. the president has proposal to where to move it to. >> tax hikes. >> not just tax hikes. he has spending cuts in it. he's prepared to do that. the republicans would rather say, sequester is the president's idea. we're not going to allow anything to happen to it. >> what i don't understand about this, everybody says it's a terrible idea. an awful idea. yet everybody voted for it. and the white house keeps repeating that they want a balanced approach. the president has all of these cuts in mind. including cuts to entitlements. i haven't seen anything specific that he's proposed.
>> at least two specific entitlement cuts on the table. the consumer price index on social security. raising the age for medicare eligibility. >> the president has come up with three different plans. at various times post the sequester to force the republicans to come back to the table to bring revenues into the table. >> when did he put out a statement, let's raise the medicare age to "x"? >> to what? >> to 67. in fairness, he backed off that a little bit. the president 345z has a plan. this is his plan. $1.4 trillion cuts. he's ready to have a dialogue. the republicans, you're saying that you like the sequester. it's fine.
that's your position. >> let me go back to what you said, mr. rattner, $85 million out of $1.6 trillion economy. after the world war ii, cut federal spending 40% in one year. and what resulted was what we called was a boom. >> i didn't say it was going to knock the economy sideways. i said it was going to have an effect on the economy. it might sound like a lot. but there are specific programs that are going to be affected. there are going to be fewer agriculture inspectors to stand in food processing plants. >> one of the things that i think the democrats are counting on, some time in april and may, when this starts to kick in, the republicans are going to break
again. >> they're not going to, because they have put this central their strategy, they chose to do this. they want to have this debate. it's not a fallback. i think there a are a couple of dangers here for the white house. they are warning of doom and gloom. how bad is it actually going to be when it happens? that's a big question. lot of people aren't paying attention. this isn't a government shutdown. people are still going to get their passports, visit national parks. how many americans are paying attention? >> it's the government slowdown. a shutdown might occur in march 27th. when the continued resolution runs out. this will have a real impact on the regional economies all across the country whether it's the threat of furloughs to federal employees. george, we have to brace for it in the washington area.
but the truth is, it's going to have an impact on children and head starts. schoolteachers, first responders. people who live in subsidized housing. >> and george, the economy doing fairly well right now, on track for about 3% growth. if the se quest holds and the tax increase at the begin og of the year, economists say that took over 1% off the economic growth. >> some economists. other economists deny that you can have a discernible effect with $34 billion. >> also, maybe it could have a positive effect. markets are worried about the size of the deficit. the size of the debt. they actually want some proof that washington is making the start of fix ing thing this pro.
you do this, you send a signal to the markets that washington is making a start. >> what the american people want a balanced approach, between spending and taxes. our spending on r and d and infrastructure has gone down by half over the last 30 years. >> the american public wants health care they can aff health care that works for them. stephen brill's cover story. let's put up the cover right there, bitter pill, why medical bills are killing us. shocking details here, steve, you talked about sky-high medical bills. people paying $150 for an aspir aspirin. $300 for an x-ray.
that's just the begin zblg right. that bares on the conversation we're having, because a chunk of that money is paid by medicare. medicare is like i pointed out in the article is very efficient. it buys health care really efficiently. which is great irony, because it's supposed to be the big government of bur rocksy. congress, because of lobbyists have handcuffed medicare. medicare can't negotiate what it pays for any kind of drugs. it can't negotiate what it pays for wheelchairs, diabetes testing equipment. if congress took those handcuffs off of medicare you could get about half of the spending cuts that we're sitting around here talking about. >> is that true? >> you could get a fair amount. if they get the same prices for prescription drugs that medicare
gets, it would save -- steven, i think your article was great. i don't believe that we can cut our way, change the pricing and still save medicare. the average person who's at medicare retirement age paid in some $122,000 in the system. they'll get back $370,000 back in benefits. we have to fundamental medicare reform. >> in the larger health care system, the government and all of us would actually save money if you lowered -- i said lowered the age for medicare. if the medicare age were 60 instead of 65, the economy and the taxpayers would actually save money and george, please
don't look at me like that. >> you're potentially right. part of the argument -- you're taking people out of the medicare system. >> what you would be doing, you would be putting medicare, it spends 80 to 90 cents to process a claim and the health insurance companies spind $25 to process a claim. health insurance companies pay two, three, four times what medicare pays through various service. if you lower the age, you would put more people into the bucket of much more efficient health care. the worst part about it is, the reforms that we have now, with the president's plan, are actually going to raise the costs because all of the people who are 60, 62, 63, who can't afford the premiums that they're going to have now, are going to
be sub diezsidized by the taxpa. >> here's an argument against that. 12 cents is the most important number. 12 cents is the portion of every health care dollar paid by the person receiving the health care. someone else is paying the rest. now, let me ask the five of you a question, you go to doctor and they say i want to give you a following test? how much of you say, how much does that cost? the doctor can't tell you. >> george, you're completely wrong. we have tried that experiment with 30 million to 50 million americans who don't have health insurance and have to pay 100% right now. they have 230 no choice. they are powerless consumers. if you go to an emergency room and a doctor says you need a
c.a.t. scan, you're not saying, i wonder if this is the most efficient emergency room. >> no, we haven't. we only have a small group of americans that are doing that. much larger group of americans who are getting their health care through their companies and it's largely paid for them and they have no skin in the game. the important part of your piece you mentioned that this is a seller's market. there's no transparency in this market. we spend hours deciding which toaster we're going to buy. we put no such thought or work where we're going to get our health care. you have had companies like safeway who worked with their employees to introduce the transparency. >> there's a difference between buying a toaster and buying a c.a.t. scan. >> i agree with george, that right now, most americans don't
se see price in health care. therefore, i have to agree, when people go on medicare, they don't see price. they tend to consume more than they otherwise would. these are really tough moral questions for the country. we'll have to deal with them. >> what you're getting to, though the fundamental question, are you going to let consumers make decisions about end of life decisions? >> that's a great point. if consumers have the money because they're not going to have the insurance. that's not the world we live in. they're making decisions now, those consumers who don't have insurance, because they don't have the money, they can't write the checks. they're being sued for their bills.
this world we describe -- >> they're in a different position. >> they're 65. >> people on either private insurance or medicare, consume more medical service than they need because they don't see price. >> the uninsured is not the germane cohort. no one expects your automobile insurance to cover your windshield wipers. people who buy high-deductible insurance, we have enough of them that we have real data. two things, they use the health care system less and there's no discernible health cost to it. the rest of the agenda has been bogged down in these budget fights. especially gun control last night, wayne la pierre of the
nra coming out hard against universal background checks. >> it all sounds so reasonable. but don't you be fooled. it's aimed at registering your guns. and when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that trej industry will be used to confiscate your guns. >> donna, it seems as this whole effort has slowed down. >> no, it hasn't. it has gone on. >> joe biden is the public face of it. he's out there meeting, he was in newtown last week, he's traveling across the country meeting with law enforcement officials. patrick leahy will be putting together some proposals to try to advance this at the end of the month. gun safety laws are still topic a across the country from tucson to colorado. maryland. state lawmakers are taking the initiative. i think wayne la pierre is on
the wrong side of history. >> it has slowed down. the reason it has showed down is because the president's own party is divided on this issue. in the senate, there's a lot of disagreements. the ban on semiautomatic, the assault rifle ban, so, there's going to be a lot of fights. but it's going to be between democrats. >> the democrats respect the second amendment rights. it's about military-style rifles. get them off the street. >> get them off the street preci precisely. chicago has more than gun homicides than new york, new york has three times the population, what's the difference? the difference is different police measures. new york, with at lot of
controversy, stop and frifk. has had a measurable effect on violence. it's at the local level and it works. >> a consensus on background checks, that seems to be fraying? >> yes. you see wayne le la pierre and you wonder about it. the problem is, what history would tell us, time is not your friend on this. going back to 1968, when lyndon johnson was trying to pass gun control legislation, it seemed like a no-brainer, it was going to get passed, slowly, i got in the mud zblrjts one quick break. more roundtable coming up. our picks for tonight's oscars. . more roundtable coming up. our picks for tonight's oscars. . more roundtable coming up. our picks for tonight's oscars.
[ male announcer ] ah... retirement. sit back, relax, pull out the paper and what? another article that says investors could lose tens of thousands of dollars in hidden fees on their 401(k)s?! seriously? seriously. you don't believe it? search it. "401(k) hidden fees." then go to e-trade and roll over your old 401(k)s to a new e-trade retirement account. we have every type of retirement account. none of them charge annual fees and all of them offer low cost investments. why? because we're not your typical wall street firm that's why. so you keep more of your money. e-trade. less for us. more for you. the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪
bit oscar show on abc tonight. the favorite for best picture? 82% for "argo." check out the first lady doing the mom dance with jimmy fallon. ♪ transit fares! as in the 37 billion transit fares we help collect each year. no? oh, right. you're thinking of the 1.6 million daily customer care interactions xerox handles. or the 900 million health insurance claims we process. so, it's no surprise to you that companies depend on today's xerox for services that simplify how work gets done. which is...pretty much what we've always stood for.
with xerox, you're ready for real business. [ male announcer ] when you wear dentures you may not know it, but your mouth is under attack. food particles infiltrate and bacteria proliferate. ♪ protect your mouth, with fixodent. the adhesive helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it.
that's coming up tuesday. tomorrow, we'll all be live in hollywood oscar winners. some oscar predictions. preferences. so many political themes as we were talking about before. george, who's your pick for best picture and best performer? >> dan yal day-lewis. the best picture, "zero dark thirty." it's a genuine contribution to
education. it's rebukes to senator levin, feinstein and mccain who have enough to do without being movie critics. >> "lincoln." a year we celebrate 150th anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. it was an emotional movie. it was a masterpiece. daniel day-lewis deserves an oscar. >> daniel day-lewis. i find myself agreeing with 100% with george, on each point he made. >> on "zero dark thirty"? >> yes. >> you know, i got to go with george, i do agree with that "zero dark thirty." i have to go with intrade.
and the fact that it's not going to win. but on the best performance, i'm going to get out of my comfort zone and go with anne hathaway in "les miserables." >> that was a raw performance. >> george and steven and i can be movie buddies. i'm going to go with "zero dark thirty." it was a great moment of american triumph. and daniel day-lewis, as well, too. it's magic to embody a character like that. >> i have to agree daniel day-lewis. >> "zero dark thirty" be in suspense watching the movie the whole planet knows the ending of the movie. >> i loved "argo" as well. >> same thing goes for
"lincoln." >> let me give a shoutout to q wall wallis. >> thank you. now, we'll take break and honor our fellow americans who serve and sacrifice. after the longest gap without a casualty in afghanistan, we learned that one service member was killed friday. that's all for us today. thank you for sharing part of your sunday with us. check out "world news" with david muir tonight. and i'll see you on "good morning america" tomorrow, live from the oscars.